After reading critique of Bly's Iron John which pointed out all his rather racist and insensitive borrowing of bits and pieces of other cultures, the next essay in this book has me thinking along similar lines with respect to gender. Just as playing "Indian" with drums and war-paint in the woods takes isolated elements of another group's culture, out of context, and without concern for really understanding the rest of the originating culture, some of the changes in modern masculinity smack of insensitive borrowing. Real life is always more complex than any generalized essay could suggest, of course, and many real men are a lot more aware of women's perspectives now. Still, if helping with parenting, taking an interest in family, and crying in public are mens' attempts at creating a more equal society, they are only a beginning, and a mixed one at that. If a man helps to create a family, it seems only fitting that he should continue to take an interest in it; this is not going above and beyond, but simply taking a bit of responsibility for his own actions. And crying in public, as something that one just does, in response to some upsetting event, does not seem to be very sensible as a men's movement. If they are crying because it is natural for them, great, but if this is supposed to be something along the lines of 'getting in touch with the feminine side', it is as insulting to women as stolen Indian cultural aspects can be to Indian people. Modern women are hardly characterized by the fact of their walking around sobbing in public, after all.
Beneath all of this feminist and masculinist(?) crap, there is a deeper issue. Putting people into categories makes policy-making easier, and may simplify other areas of social life somewhat, but at a cost. It would indeed be silly to assert that men and women are identical, but beyond that, trying to define 'man' and 'woman' precisely is at least as difficult as defining precisely 'dog' or 'chair'. Unfortunately, our society is built on the intellectual foundations of earlier eras, and these foundations assume a central role for gender in shaping society. In addition to this foundation, Western society is still dominated by men, and by so-called "men's interests". To what extent these interests are really gender neutral, and what society would be doing instead if women were in charge remains to be fully determined. Certainly a woman as US president, however important as a milestone, would not change much in US politics, since she would still operate within the existing political framework.
Defining what is masculine and feminine is political, in that it is a group determination, which is then applied to everyone, regardless of their status relative to the general consensus. No law can change this, but it is still valid to ask why such determinations are necessary for lawmaking and policy-making. Is a parent more or less of a parent depending on how masculine or feminine she is? Certainly, any parent who is abusing her children should be subject to the law, but that is a response to an act of violence, not to a state of being.
What is concerning to me about modern masculinity, moreso than femininity, is that the masculine is still largely defined in the negative, as being what feminine is not. A man's physical strength is a partial exception to this, but a strong man is still liable to be considered feminine if he acts in ways considered too soft and feminine for a man. Women have this too, to some extent, but feminist movements exist to back up women who want to act themselves in spite of too narrow definitions. Men all too often lack these sorts of resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment